I made the Illawarra and Highlands group to serve as a proper community group and its been a spectacular success. Im the admin and im happy for anyone who climbs in the area or is interested in climbing down this way to join.

Unfortunately since I'm no longer a member of the WCC I cannot provide a current transcript of the entire discussion, however, I did copy and past all of the thread (as of 12 Dec) into a word document. I have uploaded it to Drop Box for those who want to read it here.

That is at least half if not more of the discussion that went on. A couple of other people chimed in as well after this point as well.

The final post by Terry was actually a personal message (so I still have it) to all the participants in the discussion which was this:

"
sent to posters on Oli's original '21/11' thread - LG,NR, PN, OK )
HI ok guys, my final recommendations on this - as its consumed too much time with too little benefit.
I believe your case could have been more helpfully put to me, as:
Reasons for chopping Prow Prowess:
a) its presence will cause climbing at MtK to be banned
b) its position causes a safety issue re climbers & walkers
c) the bolts are unsightly in this location
d) it is a worthless climb
e) x no. of regular MtK climbers 'scientifically' surveyed think it should go or NPWS think it should go
With factual examples/data for a) (occurring at 'like' crags), b) & e) provided
Due to the way Oli originally/continued to present the issues to me , the chockstone posts and the 'multi-alias' issue - I am still VERY SUSPICIOUS that all of this might just be a one big nasty "trolling" joke ... But for now I will pretend that you guys are being serious.
During the early days of the MtK project, I of course tried to contact the original developers/guardians of the area = R Young , A Prehn, G Hill
RY never respond to emails/sms/phone calls, AP said 'do what ever you want to the place', GH has been very helpful. After 50 routes, 200+ hours of effort, $2,700+ spent, etc. I also see myself as a guardian of the area.
For lots of factual reasons G Hill and I both think the route can stay. I actually think the bridging start and inclined incuts make it a 'unique' route to the mtn. But of course, you guys are free to do what you wish.
thanks, its been an experience.
p.s. One small piece of background - I have spent the last 11 years (2 to 6 weeks a year) with IFMGA/NZMGA professional guides/climbers (who train for 3-5 years to get their qualif., who must pass exams , must study std. texts, etc.) - they are my mentors, my benchmarks. They determine how I view the HD/Local/IHC climbers.
"

To those that suggest it might be able to be done on gear, you probably could but not exactly safe. I didn't notice any placements on the top third although I wasn't exactly looking for any.

Somebody also suggested that it's waiting for it's first trad ascent in a PM but I'm not sure of this as the route history is kinda dubious. According to TheCrag.com the route was FA'd this year, however, at some point late in the WCC discussion thread Terry claimed that this was an old route. He mentioned the dude who had supposedly done it (I can't remember and can't verify now) and he mentioned existing bolts. There is no mention of this route in the 1994 Rockclimber's Guide to Wollongong and Nowra.

And apart from all that from what I have been told by various old farts that everything at Mt Keira has been climbed or soloed anyway so any new bolting is actually retroing of old solos.

Just some objective analysis on this one, since -other than Mt Alex, Wingello and Mt Gibraltar,- I'm hardly a "wollongong climber", and can only offer an analytical view as a 3rd party viewing all the evidence presented to the masses.

In response to your justification:

a) its presence will cause climbing at MtK to be banned

This is speculative and will depend on precisely what is outlined in the Management Plan for Mt Keira with respect to climbing an bolting.

b) its position causes a safety issue re climbers & walkers

Not knowing the climb, from the pictures and what people have said, this is probably a fair statement.

c) the bolts are unsightly in this location

Aren't all bolts unsightly, irrespective of where they are? I guess, what I'm trying to say is that though it may or may not make a piece of rock unsightly, and possibly draw unwanted attention to the bolting that IS going on at Mt Kiera, I'm not too sure that this is justification to chop someone elses route.

]d) it is a worthless climb

That's too subjective to be a valid argument. At least half the routes in the Blue Mountains are worthless climbs =P Hehe.

e) x no. of regular MtK climbers 'scientifically' surveyed think it should go or NPWS think it should go...

Not really a valid argument... But I suppose that Rome IS the Mob.

My overriding point is: that as a 3rd party looking it, this whole affair seems to bring with it the air of a lynch mob, rather than a validly sought consensus achieved from a round table discussion with all the parties involved. Worthless or not, a route is still the invested vision (however obscured), time and effort of the bolter/first ascensionist. It feels strangely totalitarian that this vision should be crushed because The Authority says so, at odds with the Individual.

I do appologise if I offend anyone, but that's merely my analysis of the issue, based on what I see as a curious bystander.

Maybe I should have been more clear - the above quote was Terry's last response to the argument - and doesnt really reflect what I and some others were arguing.

My argument was solely based on point a - that the route may lead to climbing getting banned or managed at MTK. All the other points were irrelevant to the argument (except for maybe point c which relates back to a). I'm not really sure why Terry mentioned those.

I'm not going to re-write my argument for point a, if you want to read it go look at the transcript, everything that can be said is there.

On the consensus point I'm not really sure how much more consensus you can get: despite mentioning it in three forums and talking to people whilst out climbing you are the first (aside from Terry) who has questioned the chopping. Not that there is anything wrong with you disagreeing but I'm not sure how much more consensus I can get.

On 14/01/2013 ajfclark wrote:>I get a content unavailable message...
Hmmm...not sure, maybe you have to be added to the group. I figured I couldn't see it because I was kicked out. In that case good luck getting in, you'll have to be Facebook friends with someone in the group who can suggest you to the admin.

This is becoming more interesting and entertaining as it goes and the subject of poor old deceased Lionels name being used as an alias hasn't even been broached - and now the IFMGA/NZMGA are being brought into it - soon we'll need a climbing degree.

On 14/01/2013 PThomson wrote:>G'day,>>Just some objective analysis on this one, since -other than Mt Alex, Wingello>and Mt Gibraltar,- I'm hardly a "wollongong climber", and can only offer>an analytical view as a 3rd party viewing all the evidence presented to>the masses.>
Allow me to provide some more objective analysis......that's moronic!

The main flaw in your juvenile logic is the refusal to recognise undeveloped rock as having any value. The voices of moderation who consciously decide not to bolt horrible vegetated choss are ignored, because in your view a piece of rock is either a route, a potential route, or nothing at all.

Imagine if you owned a tiny shack back away from a beautiful beach. You go to spend time there, not for the shack but for the beach. One day you meet a man walking in the dunes who introduces himself as, say, Joe Goding. He asks you if you are exploring the dunes with a view to building a house there. You reply "no". Now, the next time you go to visit the beach, Joe has bulldozed the dunes and built 40 story apartment complexes, paved a boardwalk along the beach, opened a strip club, and put a sewage works next door to your shack...........you raise an objection, to which Joe replies "if you had no intention of developing the beach, what right do you have to complain about me doing so?"

Now, go away and spend a couple of years learning how to think before you feel obliged to offer any more "objective analysis"

On 14/01/2013 Olbert wrote:>The final post by Terry was actually a personal message:>p.s. One small piece of background - I have spent the last 11 years (2>to 6 weeks a year) with IFMGA/NZMGA professional guides/climbers (who train>for 3-5 years to get their qualif., who must pass exams , must study std.>texts, etc.) - they are my mentors, my benchmarks. They determine how I>view the HD/Local/IHC climbers.>"
Jesus! Just noticed this, we are dealing with a prize winning tool here. He pays to be herded round the mountains by pros, then decides to judge the wollongong rockclimbers against them (despite the fact that Oli would blow the doors off most kiwi mountain guides on any steep sandstone).........and somehow ends up elevating himself above the local good climbers based on the reflected glory of his "mentors" (you aren't their student, dipshit, you're their cattle!)

Fuching hell! Why don't you invite all your guide "mates" over to climb your new routes at Kiera, and let them know about all that "benchmark" bullshit......I would pay to be there and see their reaction!

ODH, you epitome of hypocrisy, you. I was present at the crag for some of the retrobolting that you had both input on, and approved of on certain nowra routes, despite your own rather vehement objections to the entire premise of retrobolting in these very forums.

ODH, who thinks that hurling insults in lieu of providing actual valid points lends both weight and credability to his blind subjectivity. A trend which epitomises every single one of his rants, as a simple troll through his posting history will demonstrate.

ODH, who takes the premise of a false annalogy and runs with it until it it stretches even the boundaries of a logic fallacy.

Crack out the wicker chair and go back to yelling at kids venturing on your lawn, and endure your dotage in a hovel somewhere so we don't have to put up with it. Because seriously: joe bloe Gym-climber has more credability than you on this forum, solely because he hasn't yet squandered it all pissing in the wind.

:) So now that you've taken the moral high ground, would you care to address my actual valid point that "unalienable rights of the first ascentionist" shits all over anyone who would like to enjoy some crags which are not gridded to the hilt?